The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
Now don't you think it's a little silly for Snyder to state:

[ QUOTE ]
We have only more recently realized that Harrington's strategies are weak in slow tournaments as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

because if this statement was accurate, how was it possible for Dan to have achieved his tournament results?

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh ... because the game has changed since Dan achieved his tourney results? Or, how about, in practice Dan doesn't rotely follow the strategies in his books ? etc.

But what's really important is that it's foolish to think that rotely following textbook strategies for winning tournies will get you anywhere.

Most of the concepts presented in books on poker tournies are concepts that you don't need a book to learn. The concepts intuitively become obvious to any intelligent, creative, dedicated player who studies the game as he plays, and has played a hundred tournies or so (easy on the inet).

Harrington invented "M"? No, he did not, he just named it. M has been around and been understood since the very first poker tournies. M was a very clear concept to me very early in my tourney playing career, perhaps as soon as the first time I was playing at 10th level blinds. Most other "textbook concepts" are similar.

It's really silly for Synder to say that Harrington's strategies are losing strategies, but it's just as silly to say that Harrington's strategies are winning strategies.

And don't forget that the landscape of poker tournies is changing all the time.

Snyder's book should be sub-titled "A Tournament Poker Book for the Blackjack Crowd". Maybe a formulaic approach can work in blackjack (if they let you play) but it can't work in poker.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Snyder's book should be sub-titled "A Tournament Poker Book for the Blackjack Crowd". Maybe a formulaic approach can work in blackjack (if they let you play) but it can't work in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair and reasonable comments bustedromo, except for this one. Not that the statement is entirely wrong, but that you appear to be judging a book by it's cover (or more specifically it's title). Have you read the book? I find the use of the word formula in the title a bit misleading. The PTF is much less a formula than "Kill Phil" for example (even factoring the alternative or advanced strategies KP includes). The PTF is no more formulaic than HOH.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
The PTF is no more formulaic than HOH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some way it's actually LESS formulaic. Snyder talks about playing without cards. What could be formulaic about that?

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The PTF is no more formulaic than HOH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some way it's actually LESS formulaic. Snyder talks about playing without cards. What could be formulaic about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've only read this thread, not the book, but Snyder seems to be advocating a strategy that de-emphasizes watching and analyzing the tendencies and psychological makeup of the other players.

Instead what is emphasized is cards, M, M', M'', position and stack sizes and their inter-relationship (e.g. your stack size vs a limper's or raiser's stack size; your stack size vs the sizes of the spots behind you w.r.t fold-equity; etc.)

This is formulaic in that you can devise and refine a strategy and apply it in any tourney you decide it's EV+ for you to play. You can spend all of your thought-energies analyzing how your present scenario ranks probabalistically within the range of (similar in one or more respects) scenarios you are likely to face over many similar tournies and act accordingly.

Snyder's is really an inet tourney strategy. In live tournies you give up way too much, except maybe in low buyin donkaments where most of the players play the same way (but b/c of TV I'm not really sure those exist anymore).

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Snyder's book should be sub-titled "A Tournament Poker Book for the Blackjack Crowd". Maybe a formulaic approach can work in blackjack (if they let you play) but it can't work in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair and reasonable comments bustedromo, except for this one. Not that the statement is entirely wrong, but that you appear to be judging a book by it's cover (or more specifically it's title). Have you read the book? I find the use of the word formula in the title a bit misleading. The PTF is much less a formula than "Kill Phil" for example (even factoring the alternative or advanced strategies KP includes). The PTF is no more formulaic than HOH.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I haven't read it. It's too time-consuming reading all these books only to find out after each 20 pages it's just another concept that was already intuitively obvious to me.

Yes, the 1st (and even the 2nd) derivative of M matter -- I don't see what Malmuth is arguing about. But that's just another concept that's always been intuitively obvious to me.

Poker tournies, backgammon, chess, etc. are games which are all about thinking ahead, anticipating how the future is likely to be in its most prominent variations.

I think an awful lot of serious tourney poker players have a much better intuitive grasp on these concepts than they might think when they open up a huge book and think "oh dear, it's much more difficult than I ever imagined".

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
No I haven't read it. It's too time-consuming reading all these books only to find out after each 20 pages it's just another concept that was already intuitively obvious to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you took the time to read this entire thread? But you are a god. And soooo humble. The rest of us are just wasting our time.

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No I haven't read it. It's too time-consuming reading all these books only to find out after each 20 pages it's just another concept that was already intuitively obvious to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you took the time to read this entire thread? But you are a god. And soooo humble. The rest of us are just wasting our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not Jack, you don't get good at winning tournaments sitting around reading 350pp books ... but keep right on with it if that's your taste.

Oh, wait, according to you the poker boom is over so what's the point.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not Jack, you don't get good at winning tournaments sitting around reading 350pp books ... but keep right on with it if that's your taste.

Oh, wait, according to you the poker boom is over so what's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

An understandable position when your reading comprehension skills are limited.

I don't know why I'm bothering. You are already way ahead of everyone else in your smugness. I wish I could be present when the roof comes down on your head, as it always does to guys like you.

"People who think they know everything annoy the hell out of those of us who do."

I'm done with you.